N.Y. Times Op-Ed Page Rejects McCain Iraq Piece

Updated 3:55 p.m.By Howard Kurtz
Prospective authors don't usually make a big announcement when their prose is rejected by the New York Times Op-Ed page. But John McCain's campaign is telling the world that the liberal opinion and commentary page turned down his submission on Iraq, just days after publishing a similar piece by Barack Obama.

The Obama article made the case that his administration could "safely redeploy" most U.S. forces from Iraq over a 16-month period. The McCain camp, sensing an equal-time opportunity, submitted its Iraq piece Friday.

"The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops," it said. "All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his 'plan for Iraq' in advance of his first 'fact finding' trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months."

About two hours later, David Shipley, the paper's opinion editor, wrote:

I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the Op-Ed page. However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach. The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

Sounds like a pretty high bar.

Shipley, by the way, served as a speechwriter and special assistant to then-President Clinton. And the McCain camp was already steamed at the Times over that much-criticized news story about his relationship to a female lobbyist.

At this point McCain strategists had three choices. They could a) rework the article for the Times, b) submit it to another newspaper or c) clip it to Matt Drudge. They chose c).

The Drudge Report gave it a big splash online, which will drive the controversy onto radio and cable talk shows.

The Times issued a statement Monday afternoon, saying: "It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously."

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the Times's response "reveals where they're coming from" and that the article will not be resubmitted. The Republican candidate's position on Iraq, Rogers said, "will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."

THE FOURTH ESTATE
IS STARTING TO RESEMBLE
THE THIRD REICH.
Like Joseph Goebbels, American main stream media has replaced objectivity, integrity, and free choice with one sided reporting, that reflects their bias for Barack Obama. The American Press used to be the last bastion of truth. When special interests got out of hand, the press came to the rescue and exposed them to the public. Now, the press is the special interest with their own agenda.

It's hilarious that McCain, whose candidacy is by any stretch of the imagination only possible because of his press support, is now complaining about the Times's refusal to print the text of a McCain campaign attack ad on its editorial page. An op-ed is supposed to present a view or an analysis or a proposal; that's what Shipley is suggesting in his response. After publishing Obama's plan for Iraq, the Times is indeed obligated to publish McCain's proposals too. Problem is, he didn't submit any. He doesn't have any.

So instead, his campaign submits a piece that no respectable news organization would print, and gets it publicized for free in this "story," as well as getting an opportunity to whine. It's exactly this kind of free advertising in the press that's gotten McCain this far. But let's hope the cult of personality surrounding McCain continues to fade as people realize that while Obama actually has ideas about what to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain has no plans beyond saying the word "victory" over and over again.

If a newspaper is going to publish an Op Ed piece by one candidate then it just seems fair that they would publish one by his or her opponent.

If John McCain's article is as bad as many here say it is then the readers would be able to determine that after comparing his article with Barack Obama's article.

I think David Shipley, the opinion editor, is getting a bit full of himself when he treats a major presidential candidate like a freelance writer by telling him how to write his article. He is making the article a bigger deal than it ever would have been if it had been published in the Times.

If a paper is going to publish an Op Ed piece by one candidate then it just seems fair that they would publish one by his or her opponent.

If John McCain's article is as bad as many here say it is then the readers would be able to determine that after comparing his with Barack Obama.

I think David Shipley, the opinion editor, is getting a bit full of himself when he treats a major presidential candidate like a freelance writer by telling him how to write his article. He is making the article a bigger deal than it ever would have been if it had been published

Oh please people. 99.9% percent of you here have never written pieces for an editorial. Doesn't matter if it's a right leaning or a left leaning publication, you get 2-3 revision requests at times. You respond and correct. I'm a middle of the road Republican and I see that the McCain camp instead of addressing the editorial issues and get published choose to blast the publication. How immature, address the faults NYT found and get published. This is the same as the other writers, but they just don't go airing it? What you all think the first draft of someone's editorial gets published? Dream on!

I'm more and more concerned that none of McCain's so called high quality staffers are doing their job? He has Carly Fiorina on board, whatever position you take on her running HP, she is a pretty smart women. She alone could have dealt with the NYT editorial back and forth and got a McCain response published.

I expect our print media to uphold their standards irregardless of the candidate. If you want the NYT to dumb down, then should we also expect publications that align to McCain to dumb down for Obama.

Rediculous! The media could not possibly be more blatant in its preferance for Obama! It has now crossed over into intentional activism for one candidate over another. Media bias? How about just remaining ethical!

I really like these guys less and less every day. But McCain take the Cake.
I dont like either of these two obama or McCain. This is a little off subject, but I just saw the Video of McCain on the Conan Show, He fell asleep on the Conan show. LOL thats hallarious. Wow! Thats all I can say Wow. The news should run this video more. If anyone want to see the video you can go to http://www.mccanes.com its under the videos. LOL Halarious. Today Ive seen a video of McCain taking a nap on the Conan Obrien show, and a Video of Obama making a three pointer. This race is a carnival. lol. Go see the video. www.mccanes.com

We definitely should have spent the 2 trillion from Iraq on education - you Republicans are pathetic!

Every pollster out there is in the tank for McCain. Rasmussen has stuff like: 'McCain pulls within ten in Maine!' 'McCain beats Obama by five in Alaska!' 'Whites won't vote for the black man' etc. The editorial over at electionprojection is always pining for Obama to make some small gaffe so it can be magnified, just like the rest of the media.

Michelle Obama said the same thing John McCain said about loving America, and she was lynched in the media for it.

There is a double standard in this election. And there will be a computer program that analyzes all political content and calls out all of the media pundits and power players for their biases.

In case you missed it, WaPo and NYT - have ignored or underreported the most recent major stories:
1) Maliki's support of Obama's timeframe is a huge, huge story that is being underreported. (And the WH cover up of its Iraqi diplomatic arm twisting will be swept under the rug.) Who called whom, and when?
2) The pending FEC case against McCain arguing that he should be forced to stay in the matching system
3) Phil Gramm, entrusted with McCain's economic plan, is the corrupt Mr. Enron
4) The surge only worked because of the surge in bribes
5)McCain's long legislative history of opposing energy independence

The media is in the tank for McCain. There should be an outrage that he used public money to secure a loan then exited the matching system. That has a material impact on the election. McCain is breaking his own law! And no one has the balls to call him on it!

This is absolutely unbelievable. Everyone knows that the press is in the tank for The Great Messiah Obama. But my God, is this the New York Times or the North Korean Times? You can't reject news or opinion from one presidential candidate. This is unreal.

General Casey's tactics in Iraq were flawed. General Petraeus took over and proposed the surge. Senator McCain supported it while Senator Obama, he who says he would listen to the generals on the ground, opposed it. The surge worked and things go much better as a result - by which we see which candidate displayed better judgment about the surge.

I'm still trying to come to terms with the fact that the media titans - WaPo and NYT - have ignored or underreported the most recent major stories:

1) Maliki's support of Obama's timeframe is a huge, huge story that is being underreported. (And the WH cover up of its Iraqi diplomatic arm twisting will be swept under the rug.) Who called whom, and when?

2) The pending FEC case against McCain arguing that he should be forced to stay in the matching system

Howard Kurtz thinks that It is too high a standard for the NYT to insist that an op-ed on McCain's plan for Iraq contain some information about what his plan is.

Saying that he will have them out by 2013 has about as much meaning as he will balance the budget by 2013 when his first year he plans to increase the deficit more than his opponent.

The NYT is insisting on the same amount of transparency. If journalist insisted on the same degree of transparency Gore would have been president.

"I think that the McCain supporters, who support McCain on the war, lack the curiosity and integrity to have demanded such a declaration, unless they simply do not care about the welfare of the troops."

And to those still whining about how "liberal" the NYT is: Please read its oh-so-delicate profile of everyone's favorite morally bankrupt hypocrite, Rush Limbaugh, in a recent magazine profile. It was written by an obvious admirer, Zev Chavets, with no criticism whatsover.
So please, spare us the "NYT is liberal" BS.

JohnD wrote: If the original draft is posted somewhere, I can't find it. Does anybody have a link?
---------------------------------------------
Duh! It's inside the Drudge link. I guess I should have had McCain give me an Internet lesson. I hope everyone will give me a pass because the McCain piece blends in perfectly with the other attack material on the Drudge site.

It doesn't take long for the left wings to accused anyone who support McCains to be labeled as uneducated, stupid redneck, does it? As the point that the McCains piece being an attack ads. The piece in queation is a RESPONSE to a earlier Obama piece. Obama would have writen a similar piece if he got the chance, and the NYT would have published it.

Go read McCain's article. It's more of a campaign flyer then anything. McCain's interview on the network morning show he is definitely out of touch with what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain also needs a remedial class in geography. Iraq does not share a border with Pakistan. If the election is about McCain he loses.

The NYT says the McCain piece had no new information and inadequate details. Printing it as-is could have embarrassed McCain, so by asking for another draft, the NYT is doing McCain a favor.

If the McCain campaign disagrees, they could post the original piece to johnmccain.com and let us be the judge. Of course, playing bash-the-media can be worth more political points than presenting new ideas, especially when you have Drudge in your corner.

(If the original draft is posted somewhere, I can't find it. Does anybody have a link?)

If there is disproportionate coverage on Tv and the airways, that can be cured by reenacting the equal time provision. I support that even though it would disfavor my candidate.
Posted by: Gator-ron | July 21, 2008 7:00 PM
_______________________________

FOX NEWS--FAIR AND BALANCED proved the point that a pound of truth for fifteen minutes and a pound of lies for fifteen minutes is just giving lies equal weight with truth, and that's what balanced reporting has come to mean in America!!!

How little?
I apologize Douglas, but I could not resist!
I mean people are talking about Aspirationals Goal within the Time Horizon.
One guy today said everyone has the god given right to be stupid!
It's tuely mind boggling what's out there in America these days.

According to an analysis I heard on Potus 08, all of the media including Fox News gives twice as much coverage to Obama as McCain. That coverage however is twice as much when it is negative as it is when it is positive. The implication is that it is not bias as much as it is that Obama is more Newsworthy, more interesting, a bigger draw. One other point that was made was that McCain's coverage was comparable to Kerry and Bush, the thing that differs is Obama. Since Obama gets greater coverage on Fox News as well. I am sure it is more unfavorable news that is given.

My God!, what's the world coming to? I never in my life would have thought a big, powerful, and White man's words would be turned away from one of these national newspapers, even a Jewish controlled, Liberal newspapers like the New York Times.

I mean, a BIG, POWERFUL, GOOD White man's words?

What's the world coming to, really?

What these uneducated, Liberals don't get it is that McCain IS THE GOOD GUY here, okay? Why would the NY Times turn down THE GOOD GUY's words, when he merely wants to explain his goodness and assure the world he's a force for good and the world, including America, has no fear from him?

I am utterly amazed at these girly LIbrals and what they are able to do, even if they number no more than a few dozen clewless ones, unlike Rush with his half billion dollar contract and hundreds of millions of followers....

Your position is well presented. I would disagree with you if Sen McCain criticized Sen. Obama as being defeatist without defining himself what conditions on the ground now preclude him from withdrawing troops. After he defines that he must give us some idea of haw he will achieve such a state that withdrawal is possible. It is unacceptable to attack Obama without giving a feasible plan. Obama's plan is better than no plan. And if McCain has no plan what is he writing about except to attack Obama.

I am surprised that you would believe the NYT has too high a standard in publishing the McCain plan without one given.

I read the piece - NYT did him a favor. How this man is considered an expert on international affairs is beyond me. Is all he going to do and run after Obama and carp? Does he have anything positive? Any vision about what he will do?

If the NYT published an op-ed in which McCain criticized Obama about at time line but offered none of his own that would be a rehash of McCain's old position. If McCain calls Obama's plan defeat without defining what victory that is simply name calling and unacceptable. If McCain. Why won't McCain do that much? It seems like the only thing he wants to do is attack Obama. In so doing do, he will be the sole judge of how the withdrawal should be done, since the reader has not been given McCain's idea of what is correct. McCain's problem with the NYT seems to be he is an autocrat and gets angry when he is called on it.

How can people compare the two arguments if somewhat comparable information is not given. I am surprised that McCain is now running against the NYT and that he is willing to announce that the quality of his professional work is not up to Obama's. I am surprised how many people are blaming the Times for maintaining their journalistic standards.I am shocked that Howard Kurtz would admit to a lower standard..

Anyone drawing any conclusion about the accuracy of the reporting by the NYT is taking an illogical leap from the opinion page to the front page.

NYT--"To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

I am extremely grateful our nation still has a handful of news organizations that are adequately staffed and offer objective skilled journalism like the New York Times. In this case I think they asked for too much, and Senator McCain chose to fire up his Fox News constituency rather than do his homework and offer some additional substance, in addition to his attacks. It would be nice and arguably to be expected to have a candidate for President of the United States offer some clear cut solutions and well defined goals when it comes to explaining how he will direct this war. The NY Times requested that McCain "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq." The following is all I could find in McCain's draft that explained what he would do, "I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground." All McCain had to do was define even if only in general terms what some of those conditions are. We not to mention those Americans who are fighting this war deserve as much. Instead of explaining himself, he chose to attack the New York Times.

posters... please. McCain said he can't even turn a computer on. Obviously some nitwit campaign scribe amalgamated a bunch of Fox/WSJ talking points and threw it up their for automatic stamp of approval (NYT). Things can not improve for McCain unless and until he gets a new scribe, because again, he can not type on the computer his thoughts because he does not know how.

I read parts of his submission elsewhere and it was grotesquely innacurate and basically rambling drivel. He should thank them for not publishing it, rather than admonishing them. Doesn't someone help him write things - I mean, who worked the computer? Someone needs to help him with his facts. Wow.

As an Obama supporter, I have but one comment after reading McCain's editorial:

I suspect that the NYT will eventually think better of this decision, and allow as much back-and-forth between the candidates as the candidates are willing to proffer. What's not to like about America's greatest newspaper hosting a *real* presidential debate, not those sound-byte things we've become accustomed to watching on television? Presumably McCain's reply doesn't include cable TV crap like, "Senator Obama, if your wife was raped...."

The New York Times all of a sudden has standards? Wow, who knew? Their motto used to be "all the news that's fit to print." Now it's "we'll kill anything we don't want you to see." After all, it's all Obama, all the time. The credibility of the NYT went by by long ago.

Having read the McCain piece I have to agree with the NYT on this one. Rather than present his own vision for Iraq all McCain did in his own piece is sling political mud at the opposition. That kind of stuff may fly on FOX News but the NYT is right to set the bar alot higher.

I hate to say it, but the NYT was right on this one. Read the submitted piece, it's far more worthy of a whiny letter to the editor in a small-town paper than an op/ed piece in any respected paper.

BTW, is this what passes for media criticism at the WP? Reporting both sides of the story as if they're equally right when there is an obvious imbalance is not what criticism is all about Howie. Shoot, that's not even what journalism is all about.

I read the McCain piece in the Drudge Report. The item reads as a soon to be released 30 second attack ad on Senator Obama.

I'm not so much afraid McCain is growing senile, as I am afraid McCain has surrounded himself with people who have already reached that stage. The piece should have never been sent as written. His staff should have understood that and not sent something that was basically an attack ad.

To clarify facts...the NYT didn't say that they won't publish McCain's article, they just said that it didn't measure up to their standards and wanted a rewrite. The article ultimately ended up in Matt Drugde's website which will publish anything. Since most republicans never graduate high school, it doesn't surprise me that most of them would take McCain's side. If I were a republican....I'd be dying of shame right now.

Having read Mr. McCain presentation to the OP Ed of the NYT I for one can not figure why they would not print it as it is. It is well constructed and lays out his plan and objectives. Is the NYT afraid of other viewpoints such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox news and this great web site(?). But be that as it may
this is much ado about nothing. It just shows the hatred that the left wing of this country has toward the rest of us middle american. The same can be said for the right wing.

We vote with our feet and move were we are comfortable. Government has reached its limits in the US. It either reform or fail.

The liberal dogs are out in force today. I waiting for the Nov to see this circus end. It is sickeing to see this ultra-liberal press making their choice. One liberal talking head (Tim Russert) is gone and I wish more would follow him.

It would be ok for the NYT to deny McCains piece if its other op-ed stories were based on similar criteria. I can't even name the number of anti-Bush opinion rants in the op-ed section of the New York Times where all they do is bash Bush and don't provide and substantial issues or solutions.

ohhh..I wasn't surprised. This is expected from a liberal newspaper. No wonder, this election will result in the fall and the rise of many. The fall of NYT is already written. When McCain wins, I would like to see liberal talking heads put their heads in their a**es.

The McCain camp is in complete disarray. I think it's time for Mitt Rommey to step up as the Republican's only true conservative and smart choice. Otherwise, we're going to lose this election in a landslide.

The McCain camp seems like an amateur hour at the Improv. I just don't understand how incopentent they're compared to the Obama campaign. Mitt would have done a much better job.

Cryos...there is nothing wrong with a high quality newspaper like the NYT asking an author to resubmit an article. It just shows McCain is just too stupid to understand that. Whining when you don't get your way may help you when you're a baby......it's just not cute when you're a 72 year old geezer.

McCain is in no position to advise anyone about the war. His misguided rants helped lead us into this disastrous war, showing us the true measure of his judgment and leadership "talents." Don't forget, McCain promised us the war would be "brief" that we'd be welcomed as conquering heroes, that we wouldn't need that many troops because technology would pave an easy path to victory and in March 2003 joined in the "Mission Accomplished" talk, promising that while there WAS a bit of mop up left, that the main goal had been accomplished, that of regime change. That this guy would presume to use the NYT oped pages for another anti-Obama rant is a good view of why his campaign is sputtering and lurching along. All vestiges of the straight talk express have been abandoned. Too bad -- at least he used to be honorable.

Is it to late for the parties to declare that Hillary and Romney were better candidates then these two... Make them the winners of their respective primaries.. and give the American people another shot of picking the best person to be President?

It's disappointing the Times won't run McCain's op-ed piece, whether it meets the standards. It simply gives the right wing noise machine/echo chamber more fodder.
Well, McCain can go on Rush Limbaugh, who reported hates him less than Obama, and state his piece to a rapturous audience.

And to Sam: I hate to break this to you, the Right loves to lie, too. Too bad you apparently can't grasp that.

Most of the Obama supporters opinions on this article are amusing. I'm glad for the protracted democratic primary. It opened Hillary supporters' eyes to what it is like to be a republican to the media. I think a lot more people can't deny the media bias because of the democratic primary.

It used to at least be somewhat hidden bias but it seems the last year media wants their candidate so bad they are willing to forgo all journalistic integrity and outright plug for their preferred candidate.

It will be interesting to see if the media and money win this election for Obama. Despite all the rhetoric for Obama abandoning public financing "to combat the coffers of the republican special interest groups" in the 2004 presidential elections when all was said and done the democrats spent $100 million more than republicans.

I guess that is part of the reason they are so mad at Rove and republican related 527s that even with $100 million additional dollars and media support they got outmanuevered.

McCain says if we don't win our war, our enemies will. If turning the security of Iraq over to the democratically elected government and reconstructed military of Iraq isn't victory then what is? Saddam Hussein was killed years ago.

I've read both pieces. Senator Obama's stated his position on Iraq. Senator McCain's was an attack on Senator Obama's position. It was a reactionary piece instead of a statement of his own position, and I think the NYT made a fair decision in rejecting Senator McCain's piece in its present form. Disagreements with op-ed pieces is what the "Letters to the Editor" section of the op-ed page is for.

As a voter who was previously swaying towards Obama, this has caused me to rethink my decision. Simply put, I no longer trust the information provided to me about the candidates from the media sources I had been reading, to have been fair and without significant bias. I will now wait until the debates to make my decision.

I'm not usually a fan of blog-explatives, but Sherry Kay's scream has pretty accuratly represended the level to which I have been fed up with old, rationally crazy, power-hungry, corpulent wretches like McCain & Co. When will these sick old tools give it up?

+++++++
I'm not one to defend the NYTimes, but it does sound fair to me. Why can't McCain just come up with a plan. He truly has not articulated his vision for victory, outside of something that looks like Korea (which is obviously not feasible in Iraq), and of course the complicit media never calls him on it. Although I think the NYTimes is way out of touch, in this instance, the WAPost's efforts to paint the NYTimes into a corner is pathetic. The Post should instead focus on asking tough questions of both candidates.

The mistake Bush and Mccain made was Ideological. They were under the pressure that the American Troops would be precieved as liberators and welcomed with open arms. If the Iraqi's would have percieved the U.S. presence as that Bush and Mccain would have had a long term pressence in Iraq. Unfortunately, it was only Bush/Mccain who thought our pressence would be precieved as liberatiors and not the Iraqi's. It was and is the total opposite. The Iraqi's never wanted the U.S. presence in Iraq and its clear that they want us to leave. The Iraqi's never asked for our help.

"The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story."

Posted by: JP Vanderbilt
*********

No, the situation in Anbar began to change before the surge when in 2006 the US commander in Fallujah rebelled against the Bush dictate against working with local Sunni leaders to address security problems, and helped one defend his people against a group of terrorists. Sunni leaders had been asking for such cooperation since August of 2003, and were rejected at least 3 times.

Bush made a quagmire of Iraq, and terrorists exploited it while Bush was concerned with forcing Iraq to follow his plans. We began to make progress when the army shifted strategy from occupation to counter-insurgency, and helped the Sunnis fight the terrorists.

The decimation of AQI is a victory indeed - but as long as the right claims it as a victory of the surge, that is, OUR victory, it looses much of its potential impact on Al Qaeda. Instead, we should proclaim it as an IRAQI victory, the rejection of extremists by the mainstream, and thank Allah that we were able to assist them in their struggle.

I'm not one to defend the NYTimes, but it does sound fair to me. Why can't McCain just come up with a plan. He truly has not articulated his vision for victory, outside of something that looks like Korea (which is obviously not feasible in Iraq), and of course the complicit media never calls him on it. Although I think the NYTimes is way out of touch, in this instance, the WAPost's efforts to paint the NYTimes into a corner is pathetic. The Post should instead focus on asking tough questions of both candidates.

The point is Mccain is losing this argument because Obama is right Mccain doesn't have a strategy to win in Iraq just to stay in Iraq. What is Mccain's strategy to win. The surge has improved the situation on the ground now how does the surge improve the process of a functional government? The Iraqi government already made it clear. Bush didn't have a strategy to win either if he did they would have convinced the Iraqi governement for long term presence like Bush and Mccain want. They didn't have a plan and thats why the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawl.

Let me get this straight. The WP's "media critic" thinks during the week that Obama is in the Mideast and Europe that McCain's having his homework handed back to him by the NYT marked "incomplete" will get any traction outside the people who were going to vote for him anyway?

I can see how Mccain lost to Bush in 2000. The guy is really an inferior candidiate to Bush. Jeez....rewrite and submit your article already. the last thing America needs is nurse your hurt feelings because your first draft was rejected.

I think the New York Times asked the appropiate questions. What is Mccain's plan, besides just staying in Iraq. All I hear from Mccain is the conditions on the ground without ensuring the public how he will continue to improve the conditions on the ground and how long it would take. Americans want to end the war in Iraq and Mccain wants us to stay there indefinately without and approximate date for withdrawl. We can't have an open whenever date. How can Mccain have a strategy without a time for leaving. Yes the surge has improved the situation on the ground but Iraq is far from being a fuctional government so thats the strategy Mccain is leaving out if he wants to stay. Besides the Iraqi government wants us to leave and a time table for with drawl.

If the people running the Mccain campaign had any brains, they'd rewrite and submit the article as the NYT wanted, instead of PROVING TO THE WORLD THAT McCAIN IS AN UNEDUCATED HACK WHO CAN'T WRITE A PROPER ARTICLE. That happens when you graduate among the bottom 5 (that's 5, not 5 percent) of your class.

The guy graduated at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, and he probably only got in because of family connections.

The Navy later told him that he'd never make Admiral, which is comparable to a general in the army.

And the guys wants to be commander-in-chief?

His op-ed piece was a political hit job, not a policy paper. He should know better. And he would know better if he had any sense.

The man was, after many years, judged by his peers to be not worthy of being an Admiral in the US Navy. Despite the fact that his father and grandfather were both admirals. That's like not getting into Brown, the easiest Ivy for legacies, when your parents and grandparents have buildings there named after them.

Try reading McCain's "editorial". It is raw electioneering and name-calling, riddled with smears and exaggerations, and dedicated to tearing down an opponent rather than putting forward a vision, plan, or even a hint of a positive proposal. I would not expect any op-ed in the NYT or any other major newspaper to read in this way. There's an accepted, more thoughtful and constructive style that is the norm for such settings (and which Obama's piece fit into).

I believe this was a set-up by the McCain campaign. They produced something that was deliberately over the top and not "fit to print," to use the NYT slogan, as a major newspaper opinion piece by an aspiring president. Then the NYT took the bait by refusing it (or requesting a revise), and the McCain people had their splashy story.

Something like this happens all the time in book publishing when an author is required to submit a certain number of books but no longer wants to stay with that publisher. They turn in a manuscript they know will be a deal breaker, that is a full book but that the book publisher won't like. Once it's rejected, they've still fulfilled their contract by submitting it and now they're free. Here it was an opinion piece they hoped and prayed would be rejected.

so the NYT ask Senator Mc Cain to lay out his plan for Iraq and since he has no plan, he chooses to leak the story to drudge and Mr Kurtz chooses to highlight it as another case of medias bias. I've just read the Mc Cain op-ed, i rather call it Senator Mc Cain attack op-ed on senator Obama plan. There are more valid examples of medias bias than this.

The GOP has two choices: 1) Replace McCain by fomenting some situation that will make McCain unable to continue as a candidate. 2) Or, of course, the one that will be attempted: steal the election, through all of the methods they worked with Bush's illegitimate elections. McCain can't win on merit, he's toast. Wait until it really heats up, and watch insane McCain light up like a matchhead. McCain's time is passed, he had a chance in 2000 and was a much better candidate then...but he bent over for Bush.

There is no way he can in the article "... articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate..." primarily because he and his crack campaign team have no idea how to address those issues.

McBush has shown paper thin knowledge in either depth or breadth on almost any issue he has discussed, to include foreign policy. And, on that issue, supposedly his strong suit, he confused the players in Iraq and mentioned Czeshlovakia (sic), which as a country has been gone for more than a decade.

It would have taken great effort on the part of the "R" party to find a worse candidate for president than one who graduated FIFTH FROM THE BOTTOM of his Annapolis class. As president, he would be worse that his present mentor, the WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

I see Grandpa McCain has his depends in a knot because the NYT won't publish his joke for an editorial. Guess what? A lot of highly educated people pay a lot of money to read quality articles on the NYT. The NYT can't lose readership by publishing something that can only be published on a blog like the druge report. What next...people whining that there isn't enough news of two headed chickens or alien abductions on the NYT?

McCain hasn't said anything knew about Iraq and the Times is correct to require more than just a tit for tat free campaign ad. McCain, once again, is trying to make the distraction the issue. We can't afford that anymore. These are serious times.

Part of McCain's problem was that he was trying to write the piece on a computer and it crashed on him five times. At which point he had to be subdued and medicated. But it was NOT post-traumatic stress disorder. There may also have been some unappreciated attempts to edit the paragraph, "Don't you dare question my right to be president, you little jerk, or I'll put an IED under your chair and throw you out of the country. I served for five years in a prisoner of war camp...[untranslatable]...IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL!"

The war turned around because Rumsfeld was fired, Cheney became less influential on the war and Gates and Patraeus were in charge. Had the Republicans won in 2006 Rumsfeld would still have been in and without competent advisors no president could succeed.

Bush's greatest failing is that he chose and got rid of people on the basis of their political thinking and loyalty and not on competence. The present Attorney General and Sect. of Defense are both men who I would trust and in the case of Gates, I would be happy to see in an Obama administration

From the NYT: "John McCain kept referring to Czechoslovakia and the Iraqi-Pakistani border in his piece. Because of the excessive errors in geography, we have asked Senator McCain to re-work is op-ed. Also the nation of whiners was also deemed not appropriate to describe Americans".

The Times asks McCain "to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq" and tell us how he is going to achieve it. A McCain spokesman implies that this is equivalent to a demand that McCain change his position.

The logical conclusion is that McCain's position is to have no definition of victory and no plan for achieving it.

In your dreams they are tied in the polls. Your "facts are as accurate as Hannity. The real poll on Intrade and the Iowa Market shows the current odds of an Obama victory as slightly short of 2:1 but greater than 3:2.

What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public?

Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks, a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

The NYT has rejected things that I have said. You would call me liberal. Most times I can attribute not being published to having been rude. But not every time. Their not publishing I do not think is related to political content

What you said does not address what I said and should not have been addressed to me. You frankly have no idea what McCain feels. I do not care one twit about what he feels. I want a definition of victory and you do not care one bit about the troops, only that you win the election. The other thing that is need is a time horizon and some estimate of the troops at best. Your response was disingenuous at best.

"articulate, in concrete terms". They couldn't , they wouldn't, they sent it to Drudge. Sounds like a cheap political shot. The NYT was right to tell him to resubmit it when he has something worthwhile to say. Otherwise, Drudge is the right place for false outrage.

are you kidding me? What worked. North Korea HAS a bomb, several bombs, and fuel oil, and food. What worked, that they gave the U.S. a list of ALL their Bombs? How does that work? Repugs as a rule are stupid... but you perhaps take the cake. Dittohead maybe, Rush druggie.

Ed, you were quoting the NYT when you said "Tell me something new" for they said that first. From the fact that McCain announce that his op-ed did not meet their standards for publication means that he has no intention of meeting their standard.

You criticism lacks merit. How can there be an Iraq plan without a definition of victory and an approximation of troop levels and a time horizon similar to what the Iraqis ask of the US. If Mr McCain wants to print an attack on Mr Obama but reveal no pertinent information about his plan, he should do it on his dime or on the mouth piece of the Republican party, the Wall Street Journal which I will add I read.

NYT is bad! I mean you can't post comments on their site like here; with opinions that is not liberal, they pick and choose what comments. Poor example of allowing freedom of the press, they should be shut down or registered as a 527!

It is me or is anyone else getting tired of McCain 'whining' about Obama's coverage. McCain and his campaign has become a group of whiners....The NYT didn't publish my Op-ed, the MSM is giving Obama's tour too much coverage...Blah blah blah. Stop whining and do something, you whiners.

Really, the NYT's mission has been to "take down" Obama? Stand back for a sec and try to look at the situation as an American - not a partisan. GW has set the bar pretty low, so Obama may look qualified compared to Bush - but by any other standard, the guy has accomplished so little while talking so big. Who else would the Times select? Still, I think the Times is favoring Obama (the Democrat) out of penance for being such stooges to Bush during the build-up to the Iraq War.

The NYT's, Mr Shipley, Is requesting exactly what many would like to know which is a definition of victory. Frankly, I do not think that McCain's definition of victory would be any different than Obama's with the possible exception that there would be a permanent base in Iraq. For political reasons the McCain camp will never write that NYT op-ed because it would be disastrous for them to define victory. The problem with Bush is that he never defined it and the troops keep dying and become seriously injured for an objective that has never from the date of entry been clear.

I think that the McCain supporters, who support McCain on the war, lack the curiosity and integrity to have demanded such a declaration, unless they simply do not care about the welfare of the troops.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has decided to break with previous policy by sending one of its most senior diplomats to engage Iran's top nuclear official, the White House announced Wednesday...."

Sounds like the Times is following the lead of BET in their coverage of the Presidential candidates. Do I have to listen to Rush, Hannity and FOX News, now? I loved the degree to which the MSM was critical of the Bush Administration; I expected the same degree of scrutiny to be applied to Obama as well. Listen, we got 8 years of GW because the press and the Congress were lazy and irresponsible - being lazy and irresponsible for Obama does not serve any purpose. Obama and Axelrod seem to have learned much from Bush and Rove about the manipulation of the masses and the MSM.

haven't read the Times since Cheney used it as a propoganda outlet, but... here we have an indication that they have learned how to not become a repug campaign outlet. I don't know though... like the New Yorker, they are owned by AIPAC. I think they were just rejecting it because it was too stupid.

bwahahahahaha....the McCain people can't even write an educated Op-ed piece on foreign policy. Let's not even bring up economics. Matt Drudge seems to be the only outlet willing to accept McCains rubbish. BTW...as the NYT op-ed editor correctly stated, calling your opponent names does not qualify as policy. Meanwhile, get an education, you red neck McShame supporters.